News: Statement from Jeffrey Titford MEP

Anthony Butcher · 17-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

GC, we can let it evolve, but the forum cannot publish unsubstantiated allegations which are now sub judice.

I still have no idea what these allegations are. It seems that the allegations are that there are allegations....

Is Titford's letter referring to other 'allegations', and if so, does anyone know what he is referring to? We haven't received any complaints from him, so it is a little difficult to know what is being referred to.

mrabody · 17-07-2008, 12:04 PM

[quote=Legin;525105]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrabody

Obviously we will have to await the outcome of the police investigation,

But did not Mr Gulleford tell Peterc that there was not any investigations taking place?

Well I doubt there were until John West complained.

Geoffrey Collier · 17-07-2008, 01:24 PM

mrabody: All that we need to remember is the total denial of any irregularity, or criminal act, having been committed by either Titford or Gulleford. Therefore, no act which pre-dates the date of their statement, could ever be justly found illegal. Let us hold at that point, for it is one favourable both to Titford and Gulleford, and one which we all can subsequently judge on the basis of that same statement. The situation, to date, has been placed in the public domain by the press, and we can discuss openly what we read in a newspaper.

mrabody · 17-07-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

mrabody: All that we need to remember is the total denial of any irregularity, or criminal act, having been committed by either Titford or Gulleford. Therefore, no act which pre-dates the date of their statement, could ever be justly found illegal. Let us hold at that point, for it is one favourable both to Titford and Gulleford, and one which we all can subsequently judge on the basis of that same statement. The situation, to date, has been placed in the public domain by the press, and we can discuss openly what we read in a newspaper.

I'm not what you are trying to get across Geoffrey but it tastes like a belgian waffle.

Geoffrey Collier · 17-07-2008, 04:44 PM

mrabody: I think that you follow perfectly what I am saying. I think that you follow equally well what Titford is trying to say.

mrabody · 17-07-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

mrabody: I think that you follow perfectly what I am saying. I think that you follow equally well what Titford is trying to say.

Yes I sort of follow what you are saying although I had to read it about five times first! You are rather overbroad in your suggestion that no act done by Titford or Gulleford can be found illegal. You mean (I hope) no act that has been complained of to the police by John West or hinted at by yourself. Presumably you don't mean that if Stuart Gulleford was convicted of lighting up a spliff twenty years ago, that this would vindicated yourself and John West? Or is that what you are saying? Are you looking for a way out of a potential libel suit should the Police give Messrs Gulleford and Titford a clean bill of health on the charges complained of.

On your last point, this was not placed in the public domain by the press. It was placed in the public domain by John West.

Akebono · 17-07-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

mrabody: All that we need to remember is the total denial of any irregularity, or criminal act, having been committed by either Titford or Gulleford. Therefore, no act which pre-dates the date of their statement, could ever be justly found illegal. Let us hold at that point, for it is one favourable both to Titford and Gulleford, and one which we all can subsequently judge on the basis of that same statement. The situation, to date, has been placed in the public domain by the press, and we can discuss openly what we read in a newspaper.

Brilliant !!

And whatever more - these kinds and types of musing on a net board show how well-developed we have all become and will continue to proceed.
These musing show that it is never extremely far from things being unclear.
As an example - if someone unnamed went down to the cafe (Starbucks) and then ordered a triple latte with a donut and then asked GC, "Would you like me to buy you another doughnut ?" Then he would be able to respond thusly : -

"Maybe but then again if we had never been in KFC and this was after teatime then YES I would but having considered all of the options like - YES, MAYBE, PLEASE, I LIKE IT and NO, NEVER EAT ON A FULL STOMACH then the other guest would possibly stand up and walk away feeling bored.

But (and here is the bone-cruncher) on a forum they can muse and he posts 15 minutes before Eastenders.

And that is the large difference !!

Not rocket science, right mrabooty ?

mrabody · 17-07-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akebono

Brilliant !!

And whatever more - these kinds and types of musing on a net board show how well-developed we have all become and will continue to proceed.
These musing show that it is never extremely far from things being unclear.
As an example - if someone unnamed went down to the cafe (Starbucks) and then ordered a triple latte with a donut and then asked GC, "Would you like me to buy you another doughnut ?" Then he would be able to respond thusly : -

"Maybe but then again if we had never been in KFC and this was after teatime then YES I would but having considered all of the options like - YES, MAYBE, PLEASE, I LIKE IT and NO, NEVER EAT ON A FULL STOMACH then the other guest would possibly stand up and walk away feeling bored.

But (and here is the bone-cruncher) on a forum they can muse and he posts 15 minutes before Eastenders.

And that is the large difference !!

Not rocket science, right mrabooty ?

Clear as a bell!

SponPlague · 17-07-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrabody

Clear as a bell!

bell or belobaba?

mrabody · 17-07-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

bell or belobaba?

Clear as a bell, not as clear as a Belobaba!

Clarity is my middle name dontcha know?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-07-2008, 01:24 PM	#13 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	mrabody: All that we need to remember is the total denial of any irregularity, or criminal act, having been committed by either Titford or Gulleford. Therefore, no act which pre-dates the date of their statement, could ever be justly found illegal. Let us hold at that point, for it is one favourable both to Titford and Gulleford, and one which we all can subsequently judge on the basis of that same statement. The situation, to date, has been placed in the public domain by the press, and we can discuss openly what we read in a newspaper.

17-07-2008, 04:44 PM	#15 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	mrabody: I think that you follow perfectly what I am saying. I think that you follow equally well what Titford is trying to say.